Appeal No. 2002-2148 Page 9
Application No. 09/627,143
In our view, the examiner is correct that the broadest reasonable meaning of the
claimed limitations in dispute (i.e., a band of the metallic material through the entire
cross section of the end portion and integral with and into the body; the band being
under a compressive stress greater than the body) without reading limitations from the
specification into the claims is that the claims recite only that a compressive stress
greater than the body is in the band. Thus, we disagree with the appellants that the
claims recite that the band of material through the entire cross section of the band is
under a compressive stress greater than that of the body. If the appellants desired that
claims 1, 2 and 8 to be so restricted, the appellants could have amended those claims.2
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1,
2 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed.
The obviousness rejection of claims 3 to 7 and 9 to 13
We sustain the rejection of claims 3 to 7 and 9 to 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Mannava in view of Sue.
In this rejection, the examiner (final rejection, pp. 4-5) determined that
2 Claim 14, treated infra, recites that roller deformation is performed on the end portion to the
depth into the end portion until the compressive stress is provided through the entire cross section of the
end portion. Thus, claim 14 is limited to the material through the entire cross section of the band being
under a compressive stress greater than that of the body.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007